Freedom of speech or invasion of privacy?

Vince524 said:

Having said that, does he have a point in-as-so-far as freedom of speech?

Click to expand...

No.

Nope. His right to freedom of speech ended when he impinged upon her right to privacy.

And yes, he is an ass. He's also an ass about to be sued, I'd bet.

Vince524 said:

Having said that, does he have a point in-as-so-far as freedom of speech?

Click to expand...

Yes.

*Edited to add -- since mscelina posted in between.

Part of the question to be determined is how he found out about both the pregnancy and how it terminated (abortion or miscarriage).

However, as much as I hate to side with WBC, since the Supreme Court saw fit to permit their hate speech, in public, and impinging on the privacy of the families in question, then this idjit can spew as well.

Does the sign name him or her, specifically? Not clear from the article.

If it does the latter, I think it most certainly crosses the line.

The right to free speech isn't absolute. I hope this one crosses a line.

He's in the wrong. Even if she aborted, I'm sure that she had the right to do so. If she miscarried, all the more sadness. Either way, there's just no justification for putting up a billboard.

This is tricky, with no names mentioned, I would say it stays within the boundaries of freedom of speech. I sub teach Elementary, and every day on the way to Anderson Mill, there are protestors in front of a clinic. This clinic is also within a mile of another Elementary school.

Distasteful and some rather interesting questions being asked while parents are taking kids to school? Probably. But violating a freedom of speech issue? Hardly.

Imagine having to look at this, these were posted all over Austin a while back

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gan...dangerous-place-for-black-people-is-the-womb/

My biggest issue with those protestors is that there's about 650 living children between the two schools just blocks away, yet they don't see fit to spend some time those living kids. Maybe go tutor a struggling first grader or mentor a 5th grader having problems.

robeiae said:

Does the sign name him or her, specifically? Not clear from the article.

If it does the latter, I think it most certainly crosses the line.

Click to expand...

This was what I thought about, too. The article doesn't say outright, but the impression I got was that she wasn't named specifically. She appears to have been just referred to as "the mother."

Editing - I've taken the 5-minute online crash course in privacy torts now.

If anyone's interested, here's a link: http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/privacytorts.html

Since she isn't named on the billboard, I don't see how she has a case. But the guy is definitely an asshole.

The other question I had about this issue is:

Does the fact that it's a billboard tip the scale in some way? In other words, if the guy had just told some people in conversation that his girlfriend had had an abortion, would that not be protected speech?

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a link to the Google search results for images of the billboard.

Michael Wolfe said:

This was what I thought about, too. The article doesn't say outright, but the impression I got was that she wasn't named specifically. She appears to have been just referred to as "the mother."

Click to expand...

If she's not named, then I'm not sure there's a problem. No way to know--when seeing the billboard--that it refers to real person (the mother) and a real abortion.

Duncan J Macdonald said:

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a link to the Google search results for images of the billboard.

Click to expand...

Hmm. No, it doesn't cross the line. Still in really bad taste, though.

The guy is a complete asshole, but if the billboard cannot be traced back to her personally, then it is not an invasion of her privacy. Of course, I am not a lawyer.

robeiae said:

If she's not named, then I'm not sure there's a problem. No way to know--when seeing the billboard--that it refers to real person (the mother) and a real abortion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if there's no name, then probably the only way anyone would find out the identity of the mother is if someone saw the picture of Fultz, recognized him, and deduced the identity of the mother through whatever they knew about Fultz's personal life.

That does seem like a possibility. But I don't think I would say that's enough to make it unprotected speech.

I see the charmer didn't pay for it himself.

Duncan J Macdonald said:

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a link to the Google search results for images of the billboard.

Click to expand...

hurghk! That picture kind of renders me unable to take this discussion seriously anymore. I withdraw.

veinglory said:

I see the charmer didn't pay for it himself.

Click to expand...

Link? I see where his business and an organization he started are prominently displayed as 'endorsing' the billboard, I couldn't find any receipts on-line.

A sponsor's name appears on the billboard. Perhaps that's what Veinglory was referencing.

Whatever your beliefs when it comes to abortion, the freedom of speech is still there. However, without knowing the specific contents of the billboard I can't say for sure and what the laws are that regard privacy. Does anyone have a copy of them?

If it is not outside the laws of privacy and she did have an abortion, then it is within the freedom of speech, I would say. If she did have a miscarriage, then it is not within the freedom of speech. That would fall within the same reason the news media can not slander a person's name.

At first glance I would say it's protected speech but I wonder if there is a case to be made on the argument that he is accusing the mother of 'killing' a 'child.' Since the felony accusation is directed at one person, who could be identifiable by others, is this libel?

vsrenard said:

At first glance I would say it's protected speech but I wonder if there is a case to be made on the argument that he is accusing the mother of 'killing' a 'child.' Since the felony accusation is directed at one person, who could be identifiable by others, is this libel?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. According to the Legal Dictionary

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others

If it was untrue, then it is libel. If it wasn't, then it isn't. And she did kill, whether someone wants to call it a 'child' or 'fetus.' Abortion always entails killing. There is no need to sugercoat it.

Michael Wolfe said:

The other question I had about this issue is:

Does the fact that it's a billboard tip the scale in some way? In other words, if the guy had just told some people in conversation that his girlfriend had had an abortion, would that not be protected speech?

Click to expand...

I imagine it does. Individuals cannot tape conversations with others without asking for permission first. Similarly, hearsay is objectionable in the courtroom. However, putting a billboard up invites strangers to your conversation. You have negated your right to privacy by extending the invitation.